Slashdot Mirror


Gone Phishing?

Zastrossi writes "According to the Anti-Phishing Working Group, phishing sites--the practice of making sites that look and act like popular sites such as banks in order to steal personal information from customers--rose from 543 sites in September to 1,142 sites in October. Gartner reports that phishing scams cost banks and credit-card companies $10.2 billion."

171 of 218 comments (clear)

  1. ING Direct's changing logon by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    ING Direct's logon page has an interesting feature where it asks for an extra piece of info beyond the username and PIN such as your account's ZIP code or a piece of your SSN on each logon, with the extra question changing every time.

    However, this security method has a fatal flaw... if an attacker knows the answer to any one of the questions, the attacker can just keep reloading until they get the question they want to come up and then answer it. Still, it's better than doing nothing at all.

    1. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by realdpk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention it just gives the attackers more information to ask the attackees. They just have to create sites that ask for SSNs and ZIPs and stuff, on top of everything else. With that additional information the attackers'll have an even easier time stealing! Way to go ING :)

    2. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by uberdave · · Score: 1

      You must be getting phished, cause it clearly doesn't have anything beyond client number and PIN.

    3. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by shundi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because that's the Canadian version? https://secure1.ingdirect.com/tpw/InitialINGDirect .html?command=displayLogin&device=web&locale=en_US

    4. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

      You must be getting phished, cause it clearly doesn't have anything beyond client number and PIN.

      He is talking about the United States ING Direct, not Canadas.

    5. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by itsthebin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      HSBC has a good extra security measure. Unless you are transferring to an existing account template you must request an extra qualifing code which is then sms'd to the phone number you have registered with them. To change the phone number requires you to ring up customer service and using your phone banking code to verify yourself.

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
    6. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by Yartrebo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. I hate having to map alpha passwords into numeric passwords while at the same time losing security (lowercase + uppercase + specials gives you an easy 80 symbols, while decimal only gives you 10). I can't remember weird numbers if my life depended on it, but I can remember alpha passwords easily so long as it's a phonetically valid nonsense word in some language I know the phonetics of (English, French, Hawai`ian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Spanish). Hawai`ian is particularly good since the phenome is limited (13 letters, including the `) and it contains the ` character, which anything but a brute force attack won't use. Having only 13 sounds (+ 4 dipthongs) means that even a fairly long word is easy to remember.

    7. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by jrumney · · Score: 1
      A better idea would be to allow customers to use their keyboards

      A better idea? Do you have shares in the Russian Keylogging Mafia or something?

    8. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by jrumney · · Score: 1
      "their computers were down." Really? At a bank?

      No, at a call centre. Their "computers are down" all the time. What they really mean is that the bank does not give them direct access to the computer systems, and they know its a pain to get hold of their after-hours contact at the bank who does, so they try and brush you off with this one hoping you'll call during office hours when they can just transfer you to the bank's real call centre.

    9. Re:ING Direct's changing logon by syrinje · · Score: 2, Insightful
      All banks in Sweden have had two factor authentication for a long time now. When you get online access to your account, you are given a physical device that generates passwords (using a secret key and the current time and some nonce inputs). A login attempt must provide

      a. Login ID (usually the SSN)
      b. A device computed response to a challenge. The challenge is usually in the form of TWO 4-digit nonce numbers that must be input into the password generator.

      No "remembered" password is needed to be supplied in this scheme. The password generator has a PIN for security, locks out forever after three succesive wrong attempts to unlock the device. Of course if someone stole your device and forced you to reveal the PIN for it by pulling out your fingernails - you ahve bigger problems than securing your account anyway.

      I work in network security (no- I am not a network admin)for a living, and I have to say this is by far the most phish resistant online banking auth scheme I have come across.

      --
      See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
  2. This may continue by comwiz56 · · Score: 2, Informative

    This can only continue to rise. I'd imagine this is a good way to make money that won't be stopping soon. Consumer ignorance is high, and this is just another way of exploiting it. Make sure to educate your friends and families and check out the Anti-Phishing Working Group.

    1. Re:This may continue by amram9999 · · Score: 1
      Education is well and good, but putting numbers like $10 billion up on slashdot may do more harm than good. It might trigger more people to participate in these illegal, fraudulent activities.

      And as far as education goes, many people are too computer illiterate to understand this. This is how viruses continue to spread via email years after they first appeared. Some people do not learn how or why they spread. Many people don't even know when their computer has a virus on it! If only msconfig was a household term :-P

  3. my suggestion, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    people should watch out for sites that seem at all phishy. i hope the govt. phish out who these bastards are so they can't phish anymore.

    this is one phucked up crime :(

    1. Re:my suggestion, by TWX · · Score: 1

      At the rate these sites keep popping up, the bulk of the Internet will be one Reel Big Phish...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:my suggestion, by danidude · · Score: 1

      At the rate these sites keep popping up, the bulk of the Internet will be one Reel Big Phish...

      nah, this phish will have to eat much spam until they became the bulk of internet...

      --
      - no sig.
    3. Re:my suggestion, by Sexy+Commando · · Score: 1

      These bastards sleep with the phishes

  4. 10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by Concern · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If anyone believes this, it justifies fairly extraordinary investment to combat it. When you are talking billions then enormous infrastructure projects are possible. For instance, imagine the kind of systematic surveillance activity that could be mounted on the internet with a multi-billion dollar budget.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that the losses are far more often bourne by the banks rather than the consumer involved. Therefore, it's a drop in the bucket out of a whole industry's profits. If that much money was lost by consumers themselves, then there'd definitely be motivation to close up the holes...

    2. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If anyone believes this, it justifies fairly extraordinary investment to combat it.

      It sure is a stunning number. However, the credit card industry is a huge rip off. They charge consumers interest rates in the 12 - 23% range. (This us during a time in history where interests rates are at historic lows). They charge the merchant fees from 1.5 - 7% on each transaction. The ever increasing fees are adding more profit. They are changing due dates to Sundays hoping to increase late fees. Telemarketing their customers. Trying to sell stuff when you call with the customer support lines.

      Last year the credit card industry profits were nearly $30 billion dollars. My guess is that they just write off the fraud and then pass those costs onto the consumer. The average credit card debt keeps increasing so it seems they can pass these costs along and the customer is so reliant on credit card debt for daily life that they don't fight it. What a sham, what a shame.

      I think this is an example of how poorly regulated capitalism doesn't work. Despite the appearance of hundreds of credit card competitors and so many cards to choose from, the industry is extremely anti-consumer. The better business bureau reports that the credit card agencies are number one when it comes to consumer complaints.

    3. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...poorly regulated capitalism doesn't work...

      What a bunch of BS. What ya want -- communism? --- Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head demanding you MUST use one of those ubiqutous pieces of plastic to pay for the stuff you want.

      If your wants outstrip your cash supply you might possibly have to discipline yourself to curtail your desires. Why are there so many elitists in this world that insist that they know better and try to protect stupid/greedy/undisiplined people from themselves by getting the government to impose rules on those who do limit their desires within their means? If you don't want to pay the greedy credit card companies profit, don't be greedy yourself and spend money you don't have to buy stuff you don't need to impress people you don't like. I do have a credit card, but I carefully keep track of my expenditures (computers are great for this) and pay it off before the due date and therefore pay NO interest. If you can't impose that sort of dicipline on yourself, cut up your plastic and pay cash.

      --
      All theory is gray
    4. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Last year the credit card industry profits were nearly $30 billion dollars. My guess is that they just write off the fraud and then pass those costs onto the consumer.
      6 years ago, I declared bankrupcy (fuck the fucking fuckers!). Just before I was about to do so, I get a letter, not registered, but by bailiff, that tells me that they would renounce to pursue any further claim towards the money I owed them, provided I paid them 35% of what I actually owed them. This means that they are perfectly willing to accept a 65% loss on accounts, which shows how much they are bathing in money.
    5. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...poorly regulated capitalism doesn't work...

      What a bunch of BS. What ya want -- communism?


      Ah come on. Because I would prefer some checks and balances in the form of effective regulation on a trillion dollar credit card industry that makes me a supporter of communism?

      The article was about an industry claiming 10.2 billion is losses due to fraud. My response was because the industry is poorly regulated, that inefficiency is allowed to be passed onto the consumer. The competition among the card companies has not created effecive solutions to the problem.

      I do have a credit card, but I carefully keep track of my expenditures (computers are great for this) and pay it off before the due date and therefore pay NO interest

      Good for you. We share something in common, I do the same. Even with great discipline I have not been immune from the credit company schenanigans - incorrectly claiming they didn't receive a bill payment until 1 day late and charging a $25 fee (on a $100 bill - wow 25% penalty).

    6. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by loraksus · · Score: 1

      You should of have pressed harder. Settlements vary, but can go to single digits. Very rare, mind you.

      I'd have to argue with the "which shows how much they are bathing in money." The settlement process is their attempt to get some, hell, any money.

      They aren't going to ask (well, once, twice) for $80,000 if they know you can't get $80,000. Unreasonable demands will be answered with a "fuck you" (You can't get blood from a rock), reasonable ones might get them some money.
      Any money is better than no money, and the whole situation is closer to a Sicilian street market than anything else.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    7. Re:10.2 Billion is a stunning number. by loraksus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come now, these are the same motherfuckers who send seniors $5 checks which, when cashed, enroll them into some credit protection program / yellow pages listing service that costs $10 a month.
      Of course the "terms and conditions" were written on the inside of the envelops (i.e. on the envelope itself) and the AG has to step in to put a stop to it.

      I had a credit card company who used to try to pull this sort of shit all the time - the due dates were set to sundays or holidays (changed every couple of months), the payment address changed every couple of months and, for some strange reason, it took about 13-15 days for them to "receive" payments (and usually another 2 days to "process". The checks weren't being sent to fucking Rwanda, but from Oregon to Utah / California / Nevada. Blind mail is faster. Mysterious fees would be added and re-added, apparantly with my consent. Membership points / air miles would vanish.
      Their collections people would be happy to call you repeatedly even though your bank told you they cashed your check 4-5 days ago.
      And it went on and on and on.
      Sure, it was fun to abuse the agents for a while, but it got old pretty fucking quick.

      The damndest thing was the company was decent for a while, and all of a sudden they changed.
      I suppose one or two screwups on their part could be attributed to incompetence or a one time screwup, but there are limits.

      I could walk away, and I did - but I'm sure many people couldn't. I know a home loan isn't the same as a credit card, but you presume that they aren't going to act like Guidos.

      I think this is also less about the person's greed - It is assumed that you're going to have to borrow a significant amount of money (not many people buy a house outright), but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a credit card company is going to be a bunch of vicious greedy assholes when you sign up. It's one of those unwritten rules.
      Rules that are eventually broken and result in "Pussification Legislation" being passed by the state's AG.

      Anyways...

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  5. Here's how I got my mom to verify by russler · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. Make certain the site name is not all numeric.

    2. Make certain it is spelled correctly.

    3. If they write to you unsolicited, just type the website in directly that you normally use for the service and you can be certain where you are going.

    I can think of more things to tell her, but the more I say the less I fear she will remember. So I boiled it down to the above list.

    So far so good....

    She is as clueless as anyone on the net, so I figure if it works for her that's a good litmus test....

    1. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      That list is a good start, but the latest variant involves a worm that hoses the hosts file and that means a properly spelled URL can still possibly lead to a phisher's site...

    2. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      Same thing with my wife -- because I've warned her, she's been on the lookout for these things. The bank scams are pretty obvious for us, since we're not based in the US and the ones we get are for US banks, but the Paypal ones are the tricky ones. It's going to get to the point where you just don't click on a link you get in an email.

      Eric
      How to masquerade your browser
    3. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by sahuaro · · Score: 2
      The two acid tests that have worked so far are:
      1. If the e-mail starts with "Dear PayPal User" or "Dear Valued Customer", it's always bogus. A legitimate mail will always use your name.
      2. If the e-mail asks you to click on a link, it is always bogus. A legitimate e-mail will always ask you to enter the real site name in your browser.
      If you're still in doubt simply open a new browser window and log into your account (see host file trick elsewhere). If PayPal or your bank needs information from you they will tell you when you sign in.

      Sahuaro
      Google is my spellchecker

      --
      Phoenix Linux Users Group
      Penguins in the desert
    4. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by jonwil · · Score: 1

      What you should do is make a shortcut on the desktop labeled "online banking" or "bank" or something like that.
      Then point that as a URL shortcut to the online bank and tell the internet newbie who you are doing this for to only ever use the "bank" icon to access the online banking and to ignore anything that any email says.

      Thats dead simple and easy to remember.
      Also, usual precautions like a good virus scanner that updates automatically (to stop worms that would mess with the hosts file).

    5. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      Well, sometimes my friends will send me links and sometimes I'll still click on those... but yeah, these days it's safer to copy and paste links instead of clicking on them.

      Eric
    6. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by hobo2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or for the truly paranoid, burn a bootable CD that does nothing but load up the bank's website. Maybe mount an encrypted volume if you want to store the data.

    7. Re:Here's how I got my mom to verify by InterStellaArtois · · Score: 1

      Another trick they play, and it's kind of obvious but can still catch people out, is the text of the link being valid, but the underlying href pointing somewhere else. eg. my.bank.com Anybody who needs educating in these respects, teach them to hover!

  6. one problem... by tsu+doh+nimh · · Score: 5, Informative

    is that banks themselves are guilty of perpetuating this stuff.

    got an email from Network Solutions the other day, complete with HTML graphics, etc. It said, Dear Customer, we periodically ask our customers to update their whois information....click here to access your account information....

    then it said failure to keep your account info up to date could result in the suspension of your domain. turned out this was a legitimate email from NetSol, but it had all the signs of a phish - addressing me with no indication they knew who I was, a la "dear [fill in bank or company here] valued customer"; it urged me to click on a link - which by the way was a dotted IP address; and it threatened negative consequences unless I acted quickly.

    Same thing happened to me with Citibank. I am a citibank customer, and the other day I received an email urging me to transfer my balances from other cards, blah, blah. Anyhow, it had all the right logos, and urged me to click on a link. When I did (with some trepidation), I was brought to a site called "accountonline.com", which as it happens, is in fact owned by Citibank.com. Again, turns out this was a legit email from Citibank (or its marketing dept.)

    Yes, it is sad that we have gotten to the point where companies cannot use email as a legitimate means of marketing and communications with thier customers (and prospective customers), but banks and other major companies need to heed their own advice, and as far as I'm concerned, as long as these companies keep doing that sort of thing, they have only themselves to blame when their customers expect this sort of communication.

    --
    ...because you never know who you're dealing with.
    1. Re:one problem... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      I am a citibank customer

      There's the problem. Move your banking to a small community bank that has at least some modicum of respect for your personal data and you won't have to worry about Citibank spamming you.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:one problem... by tsu+doh+nimh · · Score: 1

      you may think so, but recently the phishers have started going after the smaller banks, b/c the bigger banks are now using loads of technology to combat these bastards.

      --
      ...because you never know who you're dealing with.
    3. Re:one problem... by cortana · · Score: 1

      The Citibank case is entirely their fault. Whatever the web site was, it should have been somewhere in the citibank.com domain. As long as the web server also used SSL, you could have been assured that the site was legit.

      Well, as long as the domain given wasn't the unicode equivalent of (I+16@|\||.com anyway. :)

    4. Re:one problem... by md81544 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not just related to email. Here in the UK recently Lloyds TSB (one of the major high street banks) recently sent me a letter asking me to reconfirm ALL my banking details (including signature). It occurred to me that, without checking, I could be returning this official form to anyone (i.e some phishing scamster). So I threw it away. And the chasing letter. When they rang me and I finally verified this was official, I acceded to their requests. But it's shocking that they expect people to send off details like this without any verification other than the fact that the letter is on an official letterhead...

    5. Re:one problem... by Epistax · · Score: 1

      There's a real simple solution to this. While it isn't 100%, it's close.

      To contact a bank, you need to provide some sort of information to prove who you are. When the bank contacts you, there is no reason it should not need to do the same. Banks should take a passcode that they give to their clients when they contact them so that the clients know they are dealing with the real thing. This even works for phonecalls which people apparently don't realize can be phished just as easily.

    6. Re:one problem... by TykeClone · · Score: 1
      But how small are they willing to go? Look into a community bank with less than $1Billion in assets - that is still a very good sized bank, but would have too small of a number of customers to make an attractive target for those phishermen.



      Having said that, you would think that Citibank - one of the first targets of the phishermen - would be intelligent enough not to use something that resembles phishing e-mails in a marketing campaign!

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    7. Re:one problem... by statusbar · · Score: 1

      How did you know that the phone call that you received was actually from your bank?

      One time I had my accounts at CIBC, and I got a phone call from someone saying that they were from CIBC and they needed to ask me a question and to verify ME they asked me for my SIN #. I told her that I cannot give them that information to them over the phone. She put her 'manager' on the line and the manager said that this was all OK, they are CIBC.

      I said 'How do I know you are really from the bank? Can you give ME proof that you are an authorized representative of CIBC over the phone? I will come to the bank in person if necessary but this is totally unacceptable.'

      When financial institutions are doing this sort of crap, how can anyone blame the customer for falling for phishing scams? Sure, there are the obvious ones (non-https, wrong domain name, etc) but there are more tricky ones.

      ie:
      *) https via unsigned ssl certificates set to plaintext mode which usually do not give any cert error/warning. Now the little SSL lock icon means nothing.

      *) emails with inline gif images of the 'correct' link for a bank but link to a compromised box

      *) End users are accustomed now to poorly designed database driven websites that hand out crazy URLs >1024 characters long. Many home users can't parse the complex URLs and will just look at https://information-verification.BankOfNorthAmeric a.com@1.2.3.4/cgi-bin/authorizationpage.cgi and will believe it is actually from their bank.

      *) With all Microsoft Windows Machines older than WinXP SP2 being as secure as swiss cheese in a rat's nest, keyloggers in viruses are rampant. Even people working for a bank typically do not realize that these exist and just repeat 'Our system uses HTTPS secure transactions, it is not possible for anyone to compromise our system'

      One time I had a weird problem with my debit card and had to talk to my bank about resetting the PIN. I was concerned that my card was one of the cards that were duplicated by the Russian Mafia here in Vancouver just a few weeks earlier.

      Two of my friends were victims of this scam with privately owned bank machines placed in pubs and bars and small convenience stores that were modified to record the magnetic stripe information as well as the PIN.

      The person I talked to at my bank said that it was not possible for someone to have your PIN and gain access to your account without having your card and without you telling them your PIN.

      "Didn't you read the newspaper yesterday about the $5 million dollars that was stolen via fraudulent bank machines?????"

      oh well i'm ranting now.

      All you can do is reduce your exposure to unsafe technologies and have multiple accounts so you can reduce the maximum loss if one is compromised.

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    8. Re:one problem... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      got an email from Network Solutions the other day

      Well, we all know Network Solutions is only about 1 step better than phishers on the scumbag scale to begin with.

      I'm sure I've blown away legit e-mail because I don't want to deal with trying to decide if it's real or not. As long as SMTP is in use we will continue to see these kinds of things.

      It's going to take some fundamental changes to make this stuff go away (or even just abate)... and seeing as how IPv6 has been just around the corner for about a decade, I don't expect those kinds of reforms to go any faster.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:one problem... by ArcaneLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get these types of emails all of the time; very frustrating to not know if it is something I really need to do something about or scam. It seems that there is a simple solution, if banks started digitally signing emails they sent to customers, then we would know that it actually came from them. No more worries about redirects, phishing, etc.

      Does anyone know of a bank that digitally signs all of its email to its customers? It seems that it would be worthwhile to switch to a bank that does this.

      Probably true for all business related emails as well.

    10. Re:one problem... by md81544 · · Score: 1

      Very good point - however I knew because it was from the branch manager I'd dealt with on numerous occasions before :-)

      Hmmm... unless he's gone over to the dark side and started his own phishing business... or the black hats have got some good voice emulation technology (or just good impersonators...)

    11. Re:one problem... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Paypal did the same to its European (or maybe just UK) customers last week. Unlike the phishers they weren't asking to update any details, just notifying of new terms and conditions, but to read the new T&Cs you had to log in. Completely unnecessary, and had me manually typing in the URL just to make sure some phisher hadn't figured out how to fool Thunderbird and Firefox into showing false information.

    12. Re:one problem... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      My credit union has a great solution for this problem. When I sign up to receive e-mail from them, they ask me for a phrase. That phrase is then included in every message they send me. If it's not there, I know the message is fake. Simple, secure, and effective.

      I'm constantly struck by the incredibly irony that, of all the financial accounts I've had, the one with the tiny, caters-to-poor-college-students credit union has been the best, the cheapest, the most reliable, and the most secure.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    13. Re:one problem... by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. You *read* T&Cs?
      ;-)

    14. Re:one problem... by BardicStorm · · Score: 1

      I just have to respond that I personally have been very pleased with Citibanks online aspect. Keeping in mind I'm a bank customer, not a credit card customer.

      They have an internal messaging system that can only be accessed when you've logged into your account. They only ever send emails saying you have a message waiting for you and never send me anything important by email. This is how I know that the 40 emails a week I get that are supposedly from citibank are all phishing scams.

      Even if I get one that is really well done and slips past my radar, I simply type in the URL that I know is my banks and check for information there. In fact, citibank explains this to it's customers, as does every other bank I've used online.

    15. Re:one problem... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

      Same thing happend to my wife from ebay. We both thought "this is a bs email", but she really couldn't log into her ebay account, they closed it because some lowlife had hijacked it. I had to set up a new email account for her because ebay would no longer accept her old account due to the hijack.
      She insists she didn't ever give her ebay password out to a phisser, but how did they get it? Maybe there is a trojan in her computer. I tried using Mcaffe to scan the computer, but all it does it crash Windows and make it unbootable. Three McAffee scans, three re-installs of the OS.

    16. Re:one problem... by jrumney · · Score: 1
      You *read* T&Cs?

      You *trust* Paypal enough not to?

      I wouldn't be at all surprised if they slipped in an "inactivity fee" one day to make some money off all the people that have signed up for a one off transaction and never used their account. Note that they store your credit card or bank account details, there is no option to enter them once for every transaction.

  7. Education by NiTr|c · · Score: 1

    Well, if the increase is so much after so little time, these sites must be successful. My father almost got taken by one before, but luckily the credit card company called him to verify the charge. The way I see it, the only way to curb the problem of these sites is to educate as many people as possible in what to look for and just how to be a little more paranoid. Trying to defeat the people making them seems like a definate waste of time, and no matter what kind of verification process companies come up with, user (stupidity | ignorance) will surely foil it. Perhaps we should fashion a few tin-foil hats this christmas ;)

    --
    Try actually thinking for yourself. It's quite refreshing.
  8. Knowing is half the battle by ucsckevin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Phishing is a big problem for those who may be too old or too busy to remember what their bank's URL should be. with URL spoofing in IE, it's an even bigger problem.

    I think the most important thing is education. Anti-phishing technology will only be a stop gap measure. Phishing techniques will just become more advanced. I think an agressive advertising campaign, including information when you sign up for a bank account, information when you log on to your account or receive your bill will also be helpful. the previous author mentioning the example of additional login info is correct, the phisher will just reload until the information requested is available to them.

    1. Re:Knowing is half the battle by Eric+Giguere · · Score: 1

      with URL spoofing in IE, it's an even bigger problem

      Has anyone developed any anti-phishing plugins for the various browsers? It should be easy to do for Firefox and Mozilla, of course, and you can even write an ActiveX (cough) browser handler for IE, if I recall my MSDN documentation correctly. The plugins wouldn't be perfect, of course, but they could detect some obvious cases like numeric-only IP addresses being clicked, or maybe even do some analysis of your hosts file. Better than nothing, it seems to me...

      Eric
      Why the Vioxx recall reduced spam (humor)
    2. Re:Knowing is half the battle by tsu+doh+nimh · · Score: 1
      education is only part of the solution. you can educate people till you're blue in the face, but thousands of new internet users go online for the first time each day.

      no, the real solution is mainly technological: the banks need to implement some kind of physical security for online banking. while you might say most people don't need smart cards or one-time access tokens, the fact is that it's what's necessary for both parties to be more sure that the person logging on to an account is who they say they are.

      the fact is, the banks know this, but more than any other company they know their shareholders are keen on ROI - return on investment. And, as long as it costs the banks less to eat the losses from this type of fraud than it does to fix the problem, they won't change a thing. but keep this in mind: the banks here in the US are far less invested in online banking than say those in Europe, which built their businesses upon e-banking and have the physical token side to go with it. Now, an online banking transaction costs a fraction of a percent of the amount it takes to have the same customer come in to see the bank teller about their transaction, except that far more people in the US still bank at their local branch than online. When that equation starts to tip siginificantly in the other direction, then - and only then - will you see the banks ALL start to make their customers take an extra step.

      So far, only a handful of US banks require this - but for now they only require it of their corporate customers.

      --
      ...because you never know who you're dealing with.
    3. Re:Knowing is half the battle by xslf · · Score: 1

      Hmm... it sounds like you are looking for something like the SpoofStick Firefox extension.

  9. rewards for the non-gullible by EllynGeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Banks, Ebay, PayPal, and all the other popular phish targets should have rewards programs for customers who aren't gullible and don't fall for scams. And maybe a "congratulations on not being an ignorant gullible fool" reward would motivate more customers to actually care. Most folks don't, they assume the government will protect them. I think we should stop foiling natural selection and let it do its job.

    --

    we will end no whine before its time

    1. Re:rewards for the non-gullible by telemonster · · Score: 1

      I've sent like 150+ phishing emails to eBay's spoof@ebay.com (and a number of them to paypal). I always say "How about a shirt?" but have yet to get anything other than an automated response followed by a real response saying it's fake (which I already knew).

      Someday...

      --
      Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  10. Misleading Statistic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    543 sites in September to 1,142 sites in October

    Hmmm ... the number of "sites" found doubled just when Google doubled its index size...

    1. Re:Misleading Statistic? by ites · · Score: 1

      You mean all these sites are indexed under "phish"? Google has a magic way of recognising a fake site? Somehow, I don't think so.

      These are the number of distinct phish sites found by people investigating and tracking phishers. It has nothing to do with Google at all.

      The increase is extremely real and extremely significant.

      --
      Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  11. An interesting exchange by sjbe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tangentially related. I just had an interesting conversation with CDW. I ordered some toner from them for my laser printer. Set up an account and gave my credit card number through the website. Very typical online experience. We've all done it hundreds of times.

    A day later I get a call from them asking for the security code on the back of my credit card as well as the phone number for my credit card. Odd, I thought. I've been ordering online for years with this credit card and never been asked after the fact for that info. Additionally the card was a Discover card and there is only one number for that which I'm quite sure CDW knows.

    While I doubt there was anything malicious going on I had them cancel the transaction. They explained that it was for extra security but the could have easily asked for that information in the online transaction. I have no way of knowing if this rep was acting on her own so I don't see any added security for me. My only criticism of CDW is that I don't think this was a very professional way to handle this transaction.

    I don't really think there was anything malicious going on but its a good idea to be very careful when something is out of the ordinary, even a little bit.

    1. Re:An interesting exchange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They called you, from CDW to verify the transaction? That's a pretty standard practice. You could always ask for the persons extension and call back to ensure it's not call from outside their organization.

      Just think. If they called you, because they thought the transaction was fishy (and you had NOT placed an order) wouldn't you be thankful they called you?

      Just today someone used stolen card card details in full. Phone number, address, etc, for a service. I did a whitepages lookup, and called the card owner. He was completely surprised that his card had been utilized, and immediatelly called to report the attempted fraud and get a new card issued. I would sure hate to call a customer to verify 'just in case' and have them cancel on me, for only doing what is right to protect myself from a chargeback, and protect them from potential fraud.

    2. Re:An interesting exchange by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just think. If they called you, because they thought the transaction was fishy (and you had NOT placed an order) wouldn't you be thankful they called you?

      Of course, they wouldn't need his card info for that, just a yes or no would do. In the example you mkention, did you quiz the guy for his card info or just ask to verify that he ordered the service?

      I certainly wouldn't give my card info out to anyone who called me, especially since caler ID isn't exactly infallable. I would, however be willing to confirm or deny a charge.

    3. Re:An interesting exchange by sjames · · Score: 1

      There was a similar incident a few months ago, however it was not the persons card, but their name was used. They didn't have to go around calling their bank as their card had not been comprmised. If we didn't confirm the 4 digits, I would have left them paranoid. :)

      In that case, you still didn't MAKE him paranoid by asking him for his card info, you could just tell HIM the last 4 digits YOU already have and he can then decide what he wants to make of that. In no case is it necessary to call him and have him give YOU information beyond yes or no. In the case of no, YOU can tell him the last 4 digits, name, and address, etc.

      It's really a simple protocol. If I tell you (the caller) my info, I may be telling a complete stranger and potential fraud personal information about me that can then be used to rape and pillage my credit. However, if you (again, the caller) tell ME information you have about me, it's nothing new. If some idiot gave you my name and number, but their credit card number, they've set themselves up and in any event, I (as a previously disinterested third party) am much less likely to be a fraudster than the caller (YOU know you aren't attempting fraud, but how should I know that?).

      By keeping that in mind, you will all at the same time, get the verification you need, let a potential fraud victem know how worried he should be, and let real customers feel that you care about the security of their credit card info.

      While giving the callee a published number and an extension to call back will increase their comfort somewhat, it still leaves them open to employee fraud and leaves them feeling as if they have to jump through hoops just to get you to accept their business. Some will decline at that point (as is their right). It's best to ask them if they placed the order, and if no, give THEM the info you have.

      It's much like the long understood protocol when you dial a wrong number. Most people understand that the caller may ask "is this 555-5555" to see if they just mis-dialed, but should NOT ask what number is this. (even though there is very limited abuse potential involved).

  12. Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read recently that phishing scams have reached such a ridiculous level that UK banks are seriously considering making the victims 100 percent responsible for them.

    Whereas at the moment a phishing victim can reasonably expect their bank to to give back any money that's lost from their account(s) as a result of being scammed, in future the same victim could well be told that they're responsible so they're liable.

    Personally, whilst I would prefer that banks do the right thing, I find it hard to argue with a policy that says that they won't refund money where people have been stupid enough to be conned into giving away their banking details by obvious scams.

    I don't want Alzheimer's disease victims to suddenly find their accounts empty but when the average man on the street is practically giving away his financial details when he should be keeping them secure, well, what do you expect banks to do? Give away money which they then end up recouping by charging everyone more for their services?

    Sometimes, the only way you can educate people into doing the right thing is to not protect them when they do the wrong thing. In that respect, we're talking about the same sort of lesson people who don't have any backup procedures learn the first time they irretrievably lose all their data.

    Tough love is sometimes the best love.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by Concern · · Score: 1

      Tough love is fine. But if we can't make banking B2C operations suitably safe on the internet, how about simply shutting them down until we can?

      Custom clients, new security techniques, whatever. The current system is shitty, and it's being exploited like gangbusters. The blame for this does not exactly rest squarely on the consumer.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    2. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by arlandbayes · · Score: 2, Informative

      The current system is shitty, and it's being exploited like gangbusters.

      Right, in my country (Australia) the banks coerce us into using internet banking by charging us for the 'privilege' of speaking to a teller.

      If they can't make internet banking safe then there should not be a charge for doing banking with a teller.

    3. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by ManxStef · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It does seem to be yet another shift of burden of proof onto the consumer though, does it not?

      Have you noticed all the online banking EULA's with specific "you're liable for anything until you report your password as breached"? Much in the same way as "Chip and Pin" here in the UK, the shift in the responsibility of fraud onto the customer of these systems is designed for the benefit of the BANKS, any benefit to you is a secondary concern and it seems to be that its actually to your detriment in many cases.

      Interestingly, who is it that oversees the fraud of these systems to determine whether they're secure or not? Why, it's the same banks that run them. Hardly independent or unbiased now, is it? That's like asking Adobe, "is your PDF encryption secure?" Hmm, what do you think... *cough* ROT-13 *cough*

      Let's use an example of something like Chip and Pin, where instead of a signature you type in a pin along with your credit card transaction. This is vulnerable to multiple attacks, e.g. shoulder-surfing: say someone watches your pin, then steals your card and goes on a shopping spree -- the transactions are all valid as they had the correct pin, so YOU are responsible for this loss. Compare this to the old signature method, they might fool the store cashier, but when you report it you get your money back -- problem is, it's costly for the credit card companies to check and they (or the retailer) ends up paying out. The cost and burden of proof is on THEM, and they don't like that. Other examples of abuse would include dummy card readers and pin input devices, corrupt shops who capture pins, etc. For an interesting discussion on this see here:
      http://toothycat.net/wiki/wiki.pl?ChipAndPin

      So, while I totally agree that users have to bear a certain amount of responsibility, much in the same way as Chip and Pin, until internet banking can be made more secure *by the banks themselves* to the extent that phishing scams and other fraudulent methods are overcome AND the burden of proof is *kept with the banks* then I, for one, will not use them. (Removes tin-foil hat!)

    4. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100 percent about Chip and PIN.

      I'll be using my signature rather than a PIN for as long as possible. When the time eventually comes that I've got no choice but to use a PIN then I'm going to be making damn sure that the hand that isn't entering the digits is shielding the keypad whilst I'm using it.

      As to the security concerns that Chip and PIN creates, well, I guess we're all screwed by those.

      Personally, I'd prefer a system that has photo and signature-based security. You sign for transactions as you do know but your card has a visible photo ID on it, and a similar ID comes up on the entry terminal when it's processing a transaction. As you say, getting hold of someone's PIN isn't impossible but mimicking their physical appearance is a little bit harder.

      Incidentally, there are one or two UK banks that have offered credit cards with photo IDs on them for some time now, and the incident of fraud associated with those cards is far lower than cards without photos on them. Credit cards with photo IDs on them are big in continental Europe too, or so I'm led to believe.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    5. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by arminw · · Score: 1

      ... by obvious scams...

      The problem is that some of these scams are not at all obvious. Banks (like mine) need to tell their customers again and again and again VERY emphatically to categorically NEVER respond to a request for information that the customer did not initiate and not to respond to any links in an e-mail. Even better, if unsolicited information is requested, give out some bogus data. If enough people start doing that it'll take a lot of the scammer's time for nothing. Still visiting an unknown website with a vulnerable OS or browser is best avoided.

      --
      All theory is gray
    6. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by fireman+sam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OT: You also forgot the carge for talking to the ATM, or talking to someone on the phone, or a machine on the phone. Or the charge to get a statement, letter, bank cheque. Soon banks will have turn styles(sp?) at their front door that you have to enter a $2 coin.

      I'd love to own a bank, any and all expenses are simply passed onto the customer, you can charge them anything you want for whatever you want, and with the way society is set up now days it is imposible to go without a bank. Ever tried to buy a new car with cash? It is much easier with a bank cheque.

      I hate banks, but I'd love to own one.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    7. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by trewornan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      and not to respond to any links in an e-mail

      The problem with this is - sometimes the banks do need to contact their customers. Maybe more often than not it's to try to sell them something, but occasionally they have genuinely good reasons. So they can't tell customers they'll never contact them by e-mail or not to respond to e-mail.

      Normally, market forces would drive things so that in order to gain business, banks would have to assume responsibility for some or all losses. Unfortunately with banks acting as a legalised cartel, market forces don't apply.

    8. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Personally, I'd prefer a system that has photo and signature-based security. You sign for transactions as you do know but your card has a visible photo ID on it, and a similar ID comes up on the entry terminal when it's processing a transaction. As you say, getting hold of someone's PIN isn't impossible but mimicking their physical appearance is a little bit harder.

      Incidentally, there are one or two UK banks that have offered credit cards with photo IDs on them for some time now, and the incident of fraud associated with those cards is far lower than cards without photos on them. Credit cards with photo IDs on them are big in continental Europe too, or so I'm led to believe.


      In Denmark, the photo id has been removed from bank-cards with the introdution of Chip+PIN. Customers are not happy, but there's not a lot they (as individuals) can do about this, as all the banks are doing this.

      While I think it is reasonable to require bank customers to take some responsibility for the security of their cards and PINs, I am not in favour of liability being on the customer until the PIN is reported stolen/compromised - there can be a long period between actual loss of the card and knowing the card has gone e.g. a break-in at home when you are away for several days/weeks and not taken all your cards with you.

      There is also the issue of the individual not being able to choose adequate security methods - doctored keypads and shoulder surfing are difficult to guard against, and it is difficult to guarantee the card's physical security at all times.

    9. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by jrumney · · Score: 1
      I used one of these a couple of weeks ago. The machine was over the other side of the register and as I pulled the pinpad close enough to my chest that noone else could see what I was typing, the store owner sheiked at me not to break her precious new gadget by stretching the cable too far. No way was I entering my PIN at arms length right in front of her nose and in full view of the other customers in line behind me.

      My bank offered photo cards a while ago. They sent out junkmail describing how great they were at reducing fraud, and said I could have one for the introductory price of £20/year. Who is it that is benefiting from the reduced fraud again?

    10. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Interesting
      making the victims 100 percent responsible

      The banks are 100% responsible. They operate accounts for the scumbags, and they know who the scumbags are, in order to open accounts for them, and they hand the money to the scumbags.

      Lets face it, this is a problem which the banks could solve without third partiy intervention if they only tried. (You can almost hear them singing: If I only had a brain"

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    11. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by spikedvodka · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in principle, but working my (Minimum wage) Sales job I have a few things to add about what customers/consumers/marks should do

      1) SIGN YOUR GOD-DAMNED CARD ALREADY!!! You see there where it says "Not Valid Unless Signed"? Sign the card. If you want me to check for ID, Append your signature, (Or write over it with sharpie) "Check Photo ID"

      2) Only use your own card! not your wife's, not your parent's, yours. and if it's not yours, expect to either have it a) Rejected by the teller, or b) Confiscated, and destoryed

      3) Be polite to the teller when they ask for ID, ask to see the card, etc. they are doing it for your own protection, not to be a pain in the ass.

      Now... as for the stores that accept the cards
      1) Check signatures... if an associate doesn't check the signature... Fire them. If the signature doesn't match, Check ID, and write on the slip the ID information

      2) Make sure the name matches, if it doesn't Confiscate and destroy the card, then report it to the credit card company

      3) Make sure that your policies on accepting plastic is clearly posted for both employees and customers.

      Now for the credit card companies
      1) Enforce your damn policies!

      2) Perform random checks on merchants to make sure that policies are being followed... if not, revoke permissions to accept your card.

      3) Perform random checks on customers at random merchants, ensure that cards have been signed, if not, confiscate, and destroy, cards.

      I know I'm not going to make very many friends with this... hell, some of you probably hate me for saying this... but with credit/debit cards being used more and more these days, and fraud being such a problem SOMETHING needs to be done

      --
      I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.
    12. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by lemonjelo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking recently that a new TLD might help. If there was .bank or such, and only allow authoritative DNS servers that are registered by a valid bank, possibly even using DNSsec, well maybe it would be easier to educate people to only use the proper URLs.

      But of course that would also depend on a browser that doesn't make it easy to dupe people even then.

      --

      pimtamf
    13. Re:Combat it or deny responsibility you mean... by gnomeproject · · Score: 1

      Most people have accounts with multiple banks and can't remember which ones send emails and which ones don't. Also the banks (and other companies with online transactions such as Best Buy) confuse the hell out of me by sending their 'newsletter' emails from wierd domains and/or include links with suspicious URLs or domains. I don't trust _any_ email I receive from anything remotely resembling a bank...

  13. Solution (for me) by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My bank doesn't have my email address. Give them a throwaway email address when registering online, then delete the address. All the mail to that account would bounce, and the bank has other (non phishable) ways to contact me if needed.

    I can't click a false hyperlink in a printed letter.

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    1. Re:Solution (for me) by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      Wether your *bank* legitimately has your address is irrelevant.

      Phish emails DONT COME FROM YOUE BANK, idiot. They go to huge numbers of scraped and bought addresses, by people who have no idea if they even have an account at your bank, in the hopes that some tiny fraction of them do, and are stupid enough to respond with their info.

      1. Dont *EVER* use a link in an email to access any site that has anything to do with your money or your identity, or any other sort of information or accounts that should be kept secure.

      2. If you get an email that appears to come from a bank/company that you have an account or other relationship with, *STILL* done use it - either go to the site directly by *TYPING IN BY HAND* the official address for it, or if the email somehow both precludes that and seems to require you to take immediate action, *CALL* the company or bank, and *ASK* them if its for real (And if it is, point out to them that they should avoid doing that, to avoid confusion with phisher emails)

    2. Re:Solution (for me) by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      Phish emails DONT COME FROM YOUE BANK, idiot.

      Uh, no kidding, junior. And no, it's not irrelevant whether or not my bank has a legitimate address. This way guarantees no false positives, as any bank correspondence that would show up in my primary email would have to be false. So confident, that you can add your bank's name to a spam filter and junk them all immediately.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    3. Re:Solution (for me) by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      All the mail to that account would bounce, and the bank has other (non phishable) ways to contact me if needed.

      "Hello, this is Agent Jenkins from the United City Bank fraud department, is this Mr. Jenkins?

      "Mr. Jenkins, I'm involved in an investigation into a series of scams that have resulted in the loss of several hundred thousand dollars. We believe your account may have been targeted within the last 24 hours. I need to be sure of who you are before we proceed, could you please verify your account number, PIN, and online banking password? Thank you, I'll hold."

      This may not work on you, but I'm sure regular e-mail phishing won't work on you either. Saying that the phone or even postal mail is non-phishable seems naive.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    4. Re:Solution (for me) by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 1

      I guess if you need to do that to avoid them, then power to you. I happen to be able to spot false emails without needing to do that. And to be honest, I've never received a bank phish with my real banks name on it (Its a small regional bank). I have however, received paypal and ebay ones (I have a legit account with both), and your tactic wouldnt work there, since its pretty much required to use email with both.

  14. 10.2 Billion by Viceice · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did the industry really loose 10.2 billion dollars to scammers or did this number come from the same process the RIAA and the BSA used to estimate loss to piracy?

    Personally, I think something is seriously wrong if phishing alone managed to net scammers $10.2 billion. Maybe if it was world wide consumer finance fraud combined it would be more believeable.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    1. Re:10.2 Billion by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      They made it up. Hell, that number is almost as large as the 'losses' the insurance companies took during this years hurricane season.

    2. Re:10.2 Billion by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> Did the industry really loose 10.2 billion dollars to scammers

      Yep. They set all that money loose.

  15. aww by blueminder · · Score: 1

    I feel saddened that there are whole organizations that exist to rally against my favorite rock band... Wait a minute.

  16. Lycos screensaver by rsherzad · · Score: 1

    Why not develop a generic version of the new Lycos screensaver that does a DoS-attack on SPAM-sites, Phishing-sites, Nazi-pages etc., while the user is not using his PC...?

    The only way for them to defend themselves would be to take legal actions (=go into public), as it might be the case with the sites "attacked" by the Lycos screensaver...

    --
    ____
    afghanchat.com - Yes, Afghanista
    1. Re:Lycos screensaver by DramaGeek · · Score: 1

      Then comes the problem: Who decides what sites to add to the list?

    2. Re:Lycos screensaver by rsherzad · · Score: 1

      Spamhaus.org, EFF etc. pp. :-)

      --
      ____
      afghanchat.com - Yes, Afghanista
  17. Problem (for everyone but you) by comwiz56 · · Score: 1

    You need to remember though, most people on slashdot aren't getting fooled by phishes in the first place, so these techniques won't really help. The average Joe isn't going to make a throwaway email address for his bank account. Heck, the average Joe probably doesn't even know about phishing attacks, so he can't do anything to defend against them. Also, I can see alot of average individuals being reluctant to delete the email account, in fear that the bank won't be able to get in touch with them.

    1. Re:Problem (for everyone but you) by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 1

      Too bad that trick doesn't work w=9SPaypal.

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  18. sign the E-mail by jeif1k · · Score: 1

    This problem would go away quickly if people signed their E-mail. All the infrastructure is there, companies just have to use it and mail user agents have to deal with it a bit more intelligently.

    1. Re:sign the E-mail by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      This problem would go away quickly if people signed their E-mail.

      I used to do that but I stopped because it was too hard to wipe the magic marker off my monitor.

    2. Re:sign the E-mail by elegie · · Score: 1

      Authentication of e-mail is useful, but it could make it difficult to send anonymous messages for legitimate reasons i.e. reporting an act of wrongdoing. There are technologies such as OpenPGP and S/MIME but not everyone has support for them.

    3. Re:sign the E-mail by SnakeJG · · Score: 1

      Say I have an account with Bank One. A company goes to Verisign, and owns Bank0ne.com. They sign their e-mail, I verify it is from Bank0ne.com through Verisign. Now, instead of having a signed E-mail make me safer, it has increased my risk. I don't notice the 0, and since I trust Verisign, I assume the e-mail came from BankOne.com, and click whatever they present me with. Had I not had the signed e-mail falsly reassure me, I might have been more cautious, and not fallen for the trick.

    4. Re:sign the E-mail by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      Signing never makes your security any worse; at best, it doesn't help you.

      In this case, however, it should be the responsibility of Verisign to make sure that certificates they issue don't violate trademarks. So, "Bank One", "BankOne", "Bank0ne", "Bank-One", etc. are confusingly similar, and Verisign should only issue certificates to the actual trademark holder. That's, in part the justification for why certificates cost a significant amount of money: they should involve some background research.

    5. Re:sign the E-mail by jeif1k · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it should be mandatory, merely that businesses should use them when sending messages where authenticity matters. In particular, any message your bank sends to you should be signed. And any financial information they send to you, even by mail, should be encrypted.

    6. Re:sign the E-mail by elegie · · Score: 1

      It would be useful if users could handle encrypted and/or authenticated e-mail messages. The GnuPG encryption software can be freely (as in freedom) used by all users. For it to be effective, it would be necessary to obtain at least a few public keys from others in a trusted manner. Perhaps businesses could generate their public keys and provide them to GnuPG users for authentication purposes. The S/MIME standard is built into certain e-mail clients, but sending (not sure about receiving) secure mail with the user's identity requires obtaining an electronic certificate from a certificate authority company. Perhaps the implementation and support for secure e-mail standards could be made easier for users while still remaining effective. Businesses would hopefully follow up if users demanded secure e-mail.

    7. Re:sign the E-mail by jvervloet · · Score: 1
      This problem would go away quickly if people signed their E-mail.

      I use gpg to sign my e-mails. Sadly enough, most of the people I send mail to use clients like Outlook Express and the Hotmail web interface, which are not able to verify the signature. Outlook express doesn't even manage to display my signed messages, it shows them as .txt attachments. :(

  19. victim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    those bastards... stole my neopets account...

  20. Truly it is said... by plierhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Give a man a fish; and you have fed him for today.

    Teach a man to phish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.

    --

    [x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful

    1. Re:Truly it is said... by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      or Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day.

      Show a man the internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
  21. Figures... by Superfreaker · · Score: 4, Funny


    Gartner reports that phishing scams cost banks and credit-card companies $10.2 billion.

    In related news, some anonymous guy using randomly generated numbers, estimates that tech employees who visit /. during working hours have cost corporate America in excess of $1.5 trillion since September.

    1. Re:Figures... by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, don't forget all the revenue generated by a beowulf cluster of reloaders sucking up bandwidth!

  22. Finally, a good use for IP lawyers by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Sick 'em all with trademark suits.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  23. Seconded! by khasim · · Score: 1
    Custom clients, new security techniques, whatever. The current system is shitty, and it's being exploited like gangbusters. The blame for this does not exactly rest squarely on the consumer.
    Exactly. In any system that is this obviously open to abuse (and being actively abused), a large part of the blame lies with the financial institutions.

    They are the ones with the inside information on how much is lost and how many accounts are compromised. It's up to THEM to provide a better security model or to cancel Internet bank access until they come up with something better.
  24. I thought I saw a phishing victim the other day... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... then I realized those hooks and such were there on purpose. These young'uns call it piercing, and do it on purpose!. And pay tattooed fellows to do it!

    When I was a kid, we had to get bits of metal embedded in us the old fashioned way - war, industrial accidents and drunken fishing!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  25. Gone Phishing? Alas no! by rduke15 · · Score: 1

    Too bad, but I cannot expect my share of these attractive $10.2 billion.

  26. An anti-phishing class? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem seems to be people who don't know the difference. A phishing scam won't really fool anyone who is aware of them. Sure, everyone here knows about dummy e-mail accounts and is well aware what a phish looks like. The problem, as with many scams, is not those who are aware of them but those who are not.

    Given that, why don't banks and the like give a simple online tutorial before allowing a user to set up any type of Net account that implies moving real money? I would think a 5-minute (at most) presentation followed by a short quiz would be sufficient.

    If everyone involved in online financial transactions is thus educated about phishing, it would become quite a bit harder for the scammers to find unknowing victims.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
    1. Re:An anti-phishing class? by jrumney · · Score: 1
      The problem seems to be people who don't know the difference.

      I just hope my mother has said to herself: "WTF, I don't have an account with ..., why are they asking me to update my details?" enough times that when the phishers hit her bank her first reaction is: "this looks like all those other mails that J told me were scams, better check with him first."

    2. Re:An anti-phishing class? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      why don't banks and the like give a simple online tutorial

      Remember 50% of people are of below average intelligence and that includes bank staff.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  27. It cost US! Re:Figures... by mikewas · · Score: 1
    The costs aren't being born by the banks & credit card companies, they're being passed on to the customers -- US!

    So even if you do everything right, you don't get caught by a phish, you'll still be paying. A portion of losses caused by others getting duped will be added to your fees and/or reduce value you recieve. The companies will pass the cost along to everybody & protect their bottom line.

    --

    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
  28. Only works if what you see is still what you get by khrtt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wasn't there an IE exploit where you could make one URL show up like another URL in the address bar?

  29. Quite good by miyako · · Score: 1

    Some of these attacks have gotten quite good. I recently got an email from "paypal" that seemed quite convincing...except that I don't have a pay pal account. The fact is that some of these attacks are getting quite sophisticated, to the point that someone who is even on the lookout for phising scams can be tricked in a moment of slight distraction, or even be impressed by the amount of work that went into this.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
  30. Who will "fix" the internet and how? by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    The rise of phishing just shows how broken the current internet and e-mail system is. In a age in which worms and scammers can gather address books, fake headers, copy websites of legitimate businesses, hijack browsers, create zombies, and log keystrokes, no e-mail (or even web page) can be presumed to be legitimate no matter who it comes from or how you got it.

    This problem saddens me greatly because it ruins the promise of global communications. Rather than a utopian information paradise for everyone, we seem to allowing the creation of a back alley in which few dare to tread.

    If e-mail and the internet are ever to become truly useful, they must become simply trustworthy (as in simple to trust). Consumers (i.e. non-geeks) must be able to trust incoming emails or email is useless. Consumers must be able to trust webpages and their computers or these tools become useless.

    I know that many /. denizens are opposed to draconian tracking and regulation of net activities, but that is what we will get if we don't craft non-invasive, non-governmental solutions to phishing and related scams. How long will it take before the government regulates the net to make it "safe" for online grandmothers and their retirement savings?

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Who will "fix" the internet and how? by elegie · · Score: 1

      Software can be likely be made more secure if the effort was made. Consider the emphasis on features for commercial software, and the dominance of a certain OS platform. Demand from users for more secure software can help. (This is not to imply that users are to blame; many of them are simply not software experts.)

    2. Re:Who will "fix" the internet and how? by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...How long will it take before the government regulates the net...

      Why are there so many otherwise intelligent people that think the government can solve every problem? Most of the time government creates more problems than it solves. Trusting computers is not the problem and there will always be scams, with or without the Internet. The problem is that there are more and more untrustworthy people, not computers. These phishing scams can also done with the phone or by mail. However, the Internet happens to be a much more efficient tool do do this sort of thing.

      There was a time when multimillion dollar deals were sealed by a word of truth and a handshake and a man's word was his bond. Now it takes an army of lawyers and a written contract thicker than the Manhattan telephone book. An even with that, some try to weasel out on a technicality.

      On the 'net, as in most of our society, unfortunately it is increasingly a "buyer beware" world.

      --
      All theory is gray
    3. Re:Who will "fix" the internet and how? by arodland · · Score: 1

      The technology for trustworthy, secure e-mail is there and isn't even really all that new. But try to get anyone to use it and they'll ask you "what the hell do I need all this encryption crap for? I'm not a criminal!"

    4. Re:Who will "fix" the internet and how? by spyware+scams_suck · · Score: 1
      As of now, the only safety net is paranoia. Sad, but true.

      I've told everyone I know never to use the internet for financial transactions or commerce transactions (to not even to buy on Amazon.com or other reliable commerce site unless they have a debit card with an account with a VERY SMALL amount of $$ that they can afford to lose.) and to not put their financial information on their computers anywhere. The only way it will be safe is if there are definite ways to track the scammers/phishers and definite enforcement where the scammers are punished. As long as the scammers can go their merry way phishing their way from one user to another, even if you educate the users, the scammers just evolve and develop more advanced sophisticated tactics. You can tell the user to just type the URL into the URL window, but as you can see with the articles, the scammers just change the host file so that the user believes he's at the correct site. You can tell the user never to click on any emails, but there are already viruses that phishers/hackers use where no clicking is needed as long as it's sent to the user's email.

      --
      * weedshare.com 50% to artists, webjay.org iuma.com CDBaby.com Epitonic.com ampcast.com
  31. 10.2 Billion? Does that bother anyone else? by mnbitcrazy · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong, I believe this to be a serious issue. BUT, every time there is a problem like this, the price tag to those unfortunate scammed or wormed or virii'd is an amount of money that seems a little rediculous. Seriously, 10.2 billion? 10.2 billion what?

  32. Why not PKI? by hodet · · Score: 1

    Why don't any banks have pki as an option for authentication? You have a password and a private key. I know some people will say it is too complicated, but why not have it as an option for those willing to take the extra precautions?

    1. Re:Why not PKI? by DocMax · · Score: 1
      Offhand, I would imagine that the expense of implementing such a system would outweigh the savings for the bank. That said, I would be delighted to use such a system.

      I wonder to what degree federal regulations (in the U.S., that is) would affect the implementation of such a system. I know the health industry is all but strangled by red tape; does anyone have insight into the banking industry?

  33. Re:Article about Phishing / Identity Theft Prevent by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

    Nah, just part of /.'s web-bot foiler. Take out the space in "20040519" and it works fine.

  34. Here in Finland by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

    We have one time pads for our banks (at least my bank has them) and you have to verify your transactions with another code.

  35. Re:10.2 Billion? Does that bother anyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    >Seriously, 10.2 billion? 10.2 billion what?

    lira, so its actually not that big a deal.

  36. Ah, yes... by jlseagull · · Score: 1

    Phishing, the 21st century's stupidity tax.

    --
    'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
  37. Paypal's fake email looked real by Sanat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I received a paypal phishing scheme email just yesterday. I have paypal but not on that email account. Here is what the url looked like:

    http://www.cisec.or.kr/~sr5141/paypal/update.htm ?= https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/us/eng/cmd=login&ac cess979879879879879@#$@*(*87987987234242@#$@$@$@$@ $@$9

    (Have a ball with the address if you want.)

    If I was using IE then it would have spoofed the url as well.

    I halfheartedly filled in some obscene words to send, however so much data was asked for in particular ways that I never could validate the screen for sending without carefully crafting a reply ( I was cutting and pasting) so I aborted instead.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  38. 10*^3/10^10=10^7 DAMN! No idea it was by Sai+Babu · · Score: 1


    so lucrative.

    If only Swami didn't want the hassle so much $ brings he'd be offshore and phishing tomorrow.

    Hell, as it is, he can't manage the checking account, never mind $10^7!

  39. Re:10.2 Billion? Does that bother anyone else? by SunPin · · Score: 1
    Seriously, 10.2 billion? 10.2 billion what?

    Pesos.

    --
    Laws are for people with no friends.
  40. Now wait... by sammyo · · Score: 1

    How can I be sure that this [slashdoter.org] is the real slashdot? Hmmm... and why did it suddenly require my credit card for verification this time? Gosh could someone email me and let me know if all is on the up and up here.

  41. One solution by jonwil · · Score: 1

    Basicly, the bank would give each netbank customer a physical device.
    This device would be specific to the customer and would contain a special hash embedded in it. Each time you log in to the netbank, it gives you a randomly generated hash (something using the current date and time as part of the randomiszation process is good). Then, you input this hash into the device and it combines it with the stored hash and prints the result. The result is then input back to the netbank along with the other banking details (and compared to a similar hash calculated securely by the bank system based on the same hash as is stored in your device)

    That way, even if a hacker can get the hash you input into the banking, it wont work since the next time you access the netbank, it gives you a different hash to feed into your device.
    Also, just to be even more secure, the bank will record the IP address of the computer talking to it next to the hash (so when you send back the hash from your device, if the IP address isnt the one that origonally connected to the bank, it will reject it)

    1. Re:One solution by cosmic_0x526179 · · Score: 1

      Yep...

      There are a couple of ways to do this. One would be like a little keypad mini-calculator given to you by the bank, and flashed with your unique codes. The bank site gives you a 6-8 digit challenge. You punch it in the mini-calc, then type in the result. This could also be done with a little USB dongle with 5 mini buttons on it (and a bunch of unique values inside). Bank site puts up 1-5 in an animated wavy gif file (try to decode that folks). You press the correct button, it takes the challenge string, and sends back the result. That would slow down the phishermen.

      --
      This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
    2. Re:One solution by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      There's no need for user input. I do work for several large organisation and as part of their security measures, logging in remotely requires an RSA secureID (little key fob thing).

      Basically this thing generates a number on it's LCD screen every 60 seconds, and that is time synchronised to the customer's authentication servers. When you combine your username, 4 digit pin number and this RSA secureID number, it is very secure.

      I cant see this being particularly difficult/expensive for banks to implement when you consider the costs of phishing.

    3. Re:One solution by jonwil · · Score: 1

      That does sound like it would work great and help to prevent philshing.

  42. Search images? by earthforce_1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if it is possible to automatically spider for suspicious sites with images and logos from financial institutions that don't belong there? They could be shut down almost before the scam gets started.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  43. If business really lost this much... by swb · · Score: 1

    ...wouldn't their lapdogs in government be doing something about this?

    I wonder if $10.2 billion represents a "real" number, as in $10.2 billion dollars total actual sucked out of bank accounts, or if its one of those squishy numbers that represents a bunch of soft costs like customer service time and other "clean up" costs (you know, like the RIAA "lost sales" number or "virus cleanup" costs).

    While I don't doubt that fraud runs rampant on the Internet, I also have a hard time believing that a business sector is actually losing billions of dollars without either making it up by charging everyone fees, or having the government bail them out in some way or other.

  44. Restrict browser interface fiddling by elegie · · Score: 1

    The chance of successfully fooling the user is increased if a script can alter the browser interface. For instance, a script might hide the status bar and then generate its own status bar with a fake lock icon. Users can prevent this by adjusting their browser preferences to prevent unauthorized interface alterations.

    Users of the Mozilla Firefox browser can secure their setup with the following steps:

    1. Choose the "Preferences..." menu item.
    2. In the list on the left, choose Web Features.
    3. If JavaScript scripting is enabled, select the "Advanced..." button.
    4. Uncheck the checkboxes for allowing status bar text alteration, hiding/showing the status bar, and disabling/replacing context menus.
    5. Choose OK in the dialog box and then choose OK in the Preferences dialog box.
  45. 10.2 billion for 1100 sites by Seahawk91 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn,
    Even with an equal share for each site...that is almost 9 million dollars per site. If I got in last year, I would have been almost 20 million richer.

    Ah, if only I knew and got into phishing last year.

  46. Email Security by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

    Here's where email security would come in real handy. If we could convince the banks to digitally sign the email they send us, and for them to tell their customers that if it's not digitally signed by them, then it isn't from them, then there wouldn't be so many problems. On the other hand I would never click on a link in an email to update my account details. I can't believe they aren't holding the customers liable. They hold them liable if they tell people their pin code. This is pretty much the same thing.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  47. Report These To The Webhost by Rob_Warwick · · Score: 1
    I'm a tech support guy for a small hosting company. I'm going to keep from mentioning who, because I don't want to violate my NDA, but in the past week I've dealt with two customers who call wondering why we've yanked their sites, and find that we caught phishing scams on them.

    At the moment, it looks like a single guy is poking at our servers, as all of the phishing incidents we've had thus far include an Ebay scam and a Suntrust scam. Given how the attaker works (changes the contact email to a yahoo account, yes, we've sent Yahoo an abuse notice to get it shut down) I'd guess he's obtaining the users passwords, not getting any actual control over our server.

    Anyhow, the big thing is that hosting companies do actually care about this stuff. I'm sure that ISP's do too, but the only ISP's I've ever worked for, I did so in a strictly cube-farm-slave capacity, so I can't say. If you find this happening, don't just send them bad data, report it to the hosting company or ISP. Not to sound idealistic on Slashdot or anything, but it can actually make a bit of a difference.

    -Rob

  48. Re:Only works if what you see is still what you ge by anethema · · Score: 1

    If the computer got pwned, I bet they could make a few changes to the host file. Seems like a better way to do it. Sneakier anyways.

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  49. Re:Paypal's fake email looked real by slycrel · · Score: 1

    I got this email today in fact, and it gave me quite a scare. In fact, I had to immediately cahnge my password on ebay because I got past their logon screen before realizing what was going on. (Yeah I know, after going back and looking at it it reads "Dear ebay" at the top... I missed that the first time through though.) This is the scariest one I've ever seen (entire email below):

    Dear eBay,

    We regret to inform you that your eBay account has been suspended due to the violation of our site policy below:

    False or missing contact information - Falsifying or omitting your name, address, and/or telephone number (including use of fax machines pager numbers, modems or disconnected numbers).

    Due to the suspension of this account, please be advised you are prohibited from using eBay in any way. This prohibition includes the registering of a new account.

    Please note that any seller fees due to eBay will immediately become due and payable.
    eBay will charge any amounts you have not previously disputed to the billing method currently on file.

    If you would like your account to be considered for reinstatement, please click on the link below, and provide us additional information.

    >> link text: http://signin.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?SignIn &ssPageName=h:h:sin:US
    >> actual link: http://24.64.97.177/.cgi-bin/signin.ebay.com/aw-cg i/eBayISAPI.dllSignIn-ssPageName-hhsin.php

    Regards,

    SafeHarbor Department
    eBay Inc.

  50. They could slow the crime, if they really cared. by telemonster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So you set up a bunch of systems that capture tons of spam emails. Catchall's on various domain names, publish the domain names in public along with email addresses (websites, newsgroups, etc).

    After your stupid phishing scams hit, eBay, Suntrust, Citibank, Paypal and BOA start hitting them with a few marked accounts. These marked accounts are setup with the purpose of dropping the information to the phishing scam people.

    From that point, the phishing scammers will try to use this information for their benefit. At that point, it should be easier to build a path back to them.

    That would require effort, it's easier for the banks to tack another dollar onto ATM fees and write off the losses. Has anyone checked to see if banks are actually writing off these losses and reporting them to shareholders?

    Just like spam emails, the money goes somewhere. Just follow the money.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  51. Make sure links to where they say they do by erice · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I received a very well done paypal phish recently. It was sent to my paypal email address (different from my ebay address and never used for anything else).

    There was a link that claimed to go to:

    https://scgi.ebay.com/saw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?Regi st erEnterInfo

    But mousing over revealed that it actually went to:

    http://signin.ebay.com-ogi-bin.tk/_eBaydll.php

    Note the com-ogi-bin.tk rather than com/cgi-bin

  52. Re:Paypal's fake email looked real by Sanat · · Score: 1

    Here is the paypal email. Had to put it in text mode as lameness filter encountered.

    What was funny was that the email used the actual paypal site for the logo and blue bars to save bandwidth.

    Dear slashdot@hotmail.com

    It has come to our attention that your PayPal Billing Information records are out of date. That requires you to update the Billing Information.
    Failure to update your records will result in account termination. Please update your records in maximum 24 hours. Once you have updated your account records, your PayPal session will not be interrupted and will continue as normal. Failure to update will result in cancellation of service, Terms of Service (TOS) violations or future billing problems.
    Please click here to update your billing records.

    Thanks for using PayPal!
    This PayPal notification was sent to your mailbox. Your PayPal account is set up to receive the PayPal Periodical newsletter and product updates when you create your account. To modify your notification preferences and unsubscribe, go to https://www.paypal.com/PREFS-NOTI and log in to your account. Changes to your preferences may take several days to be reflected in our mailings. Replies to this email will not be processed.

    If you previously asked to be excluded from Providian product offerings and solicitations, they apologize for this e-mail. Every effort was made to ensure that you were excluded from this e-mail. If you do not wish to receive promotional e-mail from Providian, go to http://removeme.providian.com/.

    Copyright© 2004 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.

    Thanks for using PayPal! This PayPal notification was sent to your mailbox. Your PayPal account is set up to receive the PayPal Periodical newsletter and product updates when you create your account. To modify your notification preferences and unsubscribe, go to and log in to your account. Changes to your preferences may take several days to be reflected in our mailings. Replies to this email will not be processed. If you previously asked to be excluded from Providian product offerings and solicitations, they apologize for this e-mail. Every effort was made to ensure that you were excluded from this e-mail. If you do not wish to receive promotional e-mail from Providian, go to . Copyright© 2004 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  53. A serious problem by athorshak · · Score: 1

    I work for the Credit Card division of one of the largest banks/financial services companies in the United States. We have a very large online presence and have been targeted extensively by phishers. It has become a very serious problem. Not only does it cause direct financial loss when accounts are compromised, but we have delayed several new features due to phishing risk. We are in fact talking about a LOT of money. It is one of the top couple of issues for the entire corporation.

  54. The rise Phishing dicsussed on BRR by StankDawg · · Score: 1

    Episode 63 of Binary Revolution radio discusses phishing from how it works, to who does it and why to how and why it is on the rise lately.

    http://www.binrev.com/radio/archive.html

    --
    --- The revolution will be digitized! - http://www.binrev.com/ ---
  55. There are some easy improvements by ftzdomino · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most phishing sites link you into your bank's website at some point or include graphics directly from them. Banks should carefully monitor their image referrers and investigate when they all of the sudden have a high number from http://citibank.com@1.2.3.4/.

    Another thing to do is to hack the phishing sites. Phishers are typically terrible coders. This means that many standard web attacks can be used to divulge information about them. Even if the site is hosted in a remote nation, they typically forward information elsewhere. Typically they rely on javascript to check for valid input. Disabling javascript and adding some extra ' and " can sometimes give you a PHP error which will also dump the host name of their mysql server, sometimes it's hosted on a US site. Another simple attack is to save the form, edit the form target to be absolute, and then experiment with the hidden values in the data. Typically they do not check to make sure id fields are numeric before creating sql strings out of them. Adding a letter to a numeric id field or using -1 instead can sometimes cause a phishing site to dump useful debug information.

    Typically if one of these phishing emails slips by spamassassin I'll try to hack it and forward information to the banks and ISPs involved. I have yet to receive a response, so I assume they either don't care or are way ahead of me. I would think if they were ahead of me they would take less than 10 hours to shut the site down however.

  56. Re:Only works if what you see is still what you ge by trewornan · · Score: 1

    I didn't know windows had a hosts file, I thought that was a unix thing. We'll maybe it's true when people say you learn something new every day!

    So, I'll admit it . . . I'm a clueless newbie.

  57. Cloning smart cards by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    Getting hold of someone's pin may not be that difficult, but the pin is no use without the card.

    Cloning a smartcard is orders of magnitude harder than cloning a mag stripe. That's not to say that it cant be done, but it presently would require hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment... unless of course there is some stupid vulnerability in this particular chip design.

    From the sketchy detials i've seen, it seems like your PIN gets fed into your CHIP and then your chip releases it's account information along with some sort of code to verify the transaction.

    Your chip will never release the private keys that it uses to create said verification code, therefore even if you could created a new card, you'd need to manually extract the keys using something like a tunnelling electron microscope.

    For petty thieves the only solution is to steal the actual card, but that raises the stakes and i'm not sure that many credit card thieves would go there.

    1. Re:Cloning smart cards by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      My Chip and PIN nightmare scenario is a junkie armed with a knife threatening it out of me, or worse, my girlfriend. Granted, the chances of ever being mugged are very slim, but Chip and PIN seems to me to be a violent mugger's dream come true: take someone's wallet, extract their PIN from them and, voila, you've turned a nice profit simply by marching along to the nearest cashpoint.

      As I've said, being mugged isn't something that I worry about in the general scheme of things, but it does seem to me that a PIN is far more impersonal, and thus far easier to misuse, than a signature, hence it opens up a whole new can of worms.

      Frankly, there's an argument that Chip and PIN will cause more problems than it solves, but I suppose that's really should be another debate for another day.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    2. Re:Cloning smart cards by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      But don't you carry an atm card at the moment?

      Violent muggers have walked people to cash machines for years and forced them to withdraw cash - really no difference here.

    3. Re:Cloning smart cards by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess I do, because even credit cards can be used in ATMs nowadays, but I've not used any card in any ATM for a good six years now and there's no way I could tell you what my PIN was even in my life depended on it.

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    4. Re:Cloning smart cards by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      In theory doesn't that put you at more risk?

      I do the same thing with my credit cards, but do you really think your average mugger will accept that you shredded the pin because you wanted to avoid the cash-advance interest rates?

      Most people carry ATM cards therefore it negates a lot of the possible security arguments about Chip and Pin.

      I've just moved to the USA and things are so much more chaotic here. People virtually never check your signature on your credit card, let alone checking that the digits on the card match the stripe. Smart chips are virtually unheard of, but since quite a few stores have smart chip readers but haven't trained their staff on them, i can't use my british cards unless i can explain to them how to use their own equipment....

  58. it doubled? by vistic · · Score: 1

    I can't think of a reason the past few months specifically that would make the number of sites doubled...

    Just because this research firm *discovered* more sites, doesn't mean the actual number of such sites in existence increased. Did they even check to see how long these new sites they've catalogued have been around? I suspect the number of sites for phishing was even higher than the current October count of 1,142 way back in September... possibly significantly so.

  59. They prey on the stupid...... by planetgman · · Score: 1

    As long as there are people stupid enough to fall for this kind of stuff, there will be people phishing. My friends ask me "Bank of so and so emailed me, but I dont' have an account there". The only thing you can do is educate your circle of friends and family. Look at how many ignorant people are out there. There are many friends and family that I scold when they send me stuff like the Mrs. Fields cookie recipe crap or send this email and Bill Gates will donate money to something. Whenever I get these I send back a link CCing all and direct them to snopes or truth or fiction (.com)and make them look like an idiot. The internet is a powerful thing and you have too many ignorant people using it.....which means people will get preyed upon. Educate one group at a time.......that is all anyone can do.

  60. Paypal phishing irony by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    I've received spoofed emails from paypal claiming that fraudulent activity was taking place and that I needed to login to verify my information. I'm starting to wonder if some of this phishing is being done by ex-employees. It looked very real.

    Dear valued *PayPal^® *member: *PayPal^® * is committed to maintaining a safe environment for its community of buyers and sellers. To protect the security of your account, PayPal employs some of the most advanced security systems in the world and our anti-fraud teams regularly screen the PayPal system for unusual activity.

    Recently, our Account Review Team identified some unusual activity in your account. In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement and to ensure that your account has not been compromised, access to your account was limited. Your account access will remain limited until this issue has been resolved. This is a fraud prevention measure meant to ensure that your account is not compromised.

    In order to secure your account and quickly restore full access, we may require some specific information from you for the following reason:

    We would like to ensure that your account was not accessed by an unauthorized third party. Because protecting the security of your account is our primary concern, we have limited access to sensitive PayPal account features. We understand that this may be an inconvenience but please understand that this temporary limitation is for your protection.

    Case ID Number: PP-040-187-541

    We encourage you to log in and restore full access as soon as possible. Should access to your account remain limited for an extended period of time, it may result in further limitations on the use of your account.

    However, failure to restore your records will result in account suspension. Please update your records on or before *November 28, 2004*.

    Once you have updated your account records, your *PayPal* session will not be interrupted and will continue as normal.

    To update your * Paypal* records click on the following link: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_login-r un (http://213.98.120.25/paypal/index.htm)



    Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please understand that this is a security measure meant to help protect you and your account. We apologize for any inconvenience.

    Sincerely, *PayPal^® * Account Review Department

    PayPal Email ID PP522

    Accounts Management As outlined in our User Agreement, *PayPal* will periodically send you information about site changes and enhancements.

    Visit our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have any questions. http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/ policy_privacy-outsi

  61. $10b by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

    If they spent just 10% of that on paying professional hit men to dispose of the problem, we would all go home happy!

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  62. Re:Only works if what you see is still what you ge by khrtt · · Score: 1

    It's a unix thing that found its way into Windows:

    C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc\hosts

  63. PhishBase by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Check out PhishBase for a deeper peek. Uh, hey? What am I thinking?

  64. Phish Firefox? by hyphz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I personally have a bet that, if FireFox gets popular, hackers will start using its open source nature to phish Firefox itself.

    Ie, they'll hand out fake Firefox download links in e-mails or HOST file hack mozilla.org. Then, when you download, you get Firefox - plus add-on code that sniffs your keystrokes or credit card numbers.

    Mind you, this has been my big problem with using Firefox from the beginning: the distribution might contain that kind of thing anyway. At least MS, with their existing millions, are unlikely to be interested in my card number.

  65. Protect yourself! by g0hare · · Score: 1

    Max out your cards now before they do it for you!

    --
    Vote Quimby!
  66. Secure software only part of solution by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    Software can be likely be made more secure if the effort was made. Consider the emphasis on features for commercial software, and the dominance of a certain OS platform. Demand from users for more secure software can help. (This is not to imply that users are to blame; many of them are simply not software experts.)

    Absolutely! Secure software is a prerequisite for a usable internet. But it will take more than that. The internet will only become useful for everyday activities when consumers can take an e-mail at face value. I see the goal as being able to trust any email from a bank, VISA, eBay, etc. That means some form of secure identities so that the software can verify that an email that looks trustworthy (i.e. has the visual appearance of being from your bank) is trustworthy. Such a system would have to distinguish VISA from V1SA, V!SA, VlSA, etc.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  67. Government like government by G4from128k · · Score: 1

    Why are there so many otherwise intelligent people that think the government can solve every problem? Most of the time government creates more problems than it solves.

    I agree with you 100% that government is not a good solution. The problem is that government will think that government is a good solution unless private efforts stop the problem. If the internet cannot self-regulate, end phishing, prevent scammers etc., then government will step in.

    There was a time when multimillion dollar deals were sealed by a word of truth and a handshake and a man's word was his bond.

    I think this was true because there was a time when reputation meant something. Social and economic forces made people both more trustworthy and more able to trust others. Maybe the internet needs a reputation system.

    On the 'net, as in most of our society, unfortunately it is increasingly a "buyer beware" world

    Sad, but true. This only furthers the cause of laws and lawyers. The more problems buyers have, the more they will resort to legal contracts and governmental intervention.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Government like government by arminw · · Score: 1

      ...government will think that government is a good solution...

      It is unfortunate that too often the people with this kind of paternalistic "we must protect the unwashed masses from themselves" attitude find their way into government. Government is after all run by people.

      --
      All theory is gray
  68. The Easiest Counter by shoemakc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I too have been getting quite a few more of these lately, but there is a pretty easy way to combat them:

    :::never::: follow a link from an email

    If you recieve an email about company bla bla bla, needing bla bla bla, open your brower and :::type::: the known, valid address in and see if they mention it. If you're still curious...call.

    It's really that simple folks.

    -Chris

    --
    --an unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys--
    1. Re:The Easiest Counter by hom · · Score: 1

      the problem is we (slashdotians) aren't (generally) the type of people who fall for these tricks in the first place.
      It's the old lady with her new computer and AOL account who gets bitten.

      Companies who wish to prevent this fraud need to inform their customers, and not just with little phrases here and there (ebay) that most "old ladies" won't understand/remember. Then they need to give customers an incentive to protect themselves by not paying for their mistakes. As it stands, i think companies should reimburse any victims because they haven't been well informed of the risks.

  69. Simple: D.D.O.S these sites.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

    Is it that simple?

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  70. Feed the Fishers Red Herrings by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
    One thing that I can think of to cut down on these scams is to start feeding the phishers red herrings -- fake accounts and IDs that -- when they try to use them, they get trapped. Something to make them worry.

    I suggested it to at least one bank, but they didn't seem to give a rat's ass about the idea. Perhaps they get too much money back from their insurers?

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  71. This isn't just happening online... by monkeyseemonkeydoo · · Score: 1

    I know of two mortgage lenders who have had a form letter spoofed. About 500 customers called an 800 and left their account number and SSN on a voice mail that claimed it was an ID theft voice mail line. They called because the letter said that their account details were stolen and they intend to help the customer even if it means deferring one mortgage payment by placing it on the end of the 30 year loan. Around the holidays default is high and what customer wouldn't want to get one payment deferred and have a bank help them get their personal details sorted? But, when the customers called and gave their information, they found themselves with a mortgage payment and lots of other troubles. It is real hard to be safe, but if you're patient and you have some common sense you may be safer.

  72. And it just gets more fun by frog51 · · Score: 1

    Combine these attacks with cross-site scripting and you can actually be served with a malicious page from the real bank's own servers! These days education is often not enough - attackers have gone from simply altering host files to actually hooking in to browsers to redirect all requests to banking sites. Even two factor authentication will not prevent a man-in-the-middle attack in this situation.

  73. Really? by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    > Gartner reports that phishing scams cost banks and credit-card companies $10.2 billion.

    Really? I don't believe it, pardon the flock me. If it really cost them so much, something would be done about it. Like, hunt them down? This is BS, I don't believe it's costing them that much. Not that phishing (what a stupid term!) is any good, but don't lie to us - that's what phishers do! Of course, this is probably some figure thrown in by some "reporter" that just added together all the numbers he/she could find on CC fraud and the like. Booooo.

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!